This is the Self-preservation Society!
You cannot avoid the Angelina Jolie story this morning, it is spread across every media outlet. A chance to have a gawp at her breasts – but it’s all in a good cause…
In case you missed it – you can’t have done, surely! – Angelina has opted to have both the breasts you lusted over in ‘Gia’ surgically removed. A ‘absolutely heroic’ action according to her husband, undertaken to avoid getting breast cancer. Angelina’s Mother died of Ovarian cancer, and she carries the same BRCA1 defective gene – so she opted to have her breasts removed.
“Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimise the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy.
“I started with the breasts, as my risk of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the surgery is more complex.
Presumably she will now go on to have her Ovaries removed as well? Why not a full hysterectomy to remove the risk of uterine cancer? Then a Colostomy to reduce the risk of bowel cancer, and maybe Brad will consider a Bi-Lateral Orchiectomy to help ensure he doesn’t get testicular cancer? We could end up with the first totally risk averse bionic couple in show business.
There might be some point in all this self mutilation if there was any guarantee that it worked, and an extra guarantee that you wouldn’t get run over by a double decker bus on your way to the clinic.
“I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”
Which statement from Ms Jolie raises the question as to why her children were ‘fearing’ that they might lose her to breast cancer in the first place. What sort of bed-time story are these children being told?
“I lost my mum to cancer at 56… my kids won’t.”
They still might, sorry to disappoint you Ms Jolie.
Myra Biblowit, President of The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, has been out on the airwaves urging other women to do the same thing – she has apparently discovered a ‘surgery that has no risks’.
“They can ask themselves if they would rather face breast cancer or face recovering from a surgery that has no risks. If they decide to have the preventative surgery (at a time that is appropriate for them) they can remove this terror from hanging over their heads.”
Deaths occur in the UK in approximately one in every 200,000 anaesthetics administered. So unless you are planning to have your tits lopped off without the benefit of anaesthetic (and I wouldn’t recommend this!) no surgery is risk free.
Nor will you have ‘removed’ the terror of breast cancer from hanging over your head! It will still be there, just minimised. Any surgery will leave stray cells floating about in your body, should they be breast tissue cells, and be inclined to become cancerous, they still will, even if they have lodged themselves in your big toe for want of another resting place.
Just for the record, 40 years ago, Ms Raccoon had a hysterectomy, not by choice. It was the result of mistaken identity in the operating theatre, when I was 23 – unfortunately long before one could sue the NHS, otherwise Ms Raccoon would have been several hundred thousand pounds richer than she is – and having not had a uterus for the past 40 years, I still have cancer of the uterus and have had for the past two years. Yep, those few stray cells that everyone is overlooking this morning as the media marvel at Ms Jolie’s heroic actions and encourage other women to do the same, managed to lodge themselves on my one remaining ovary and do what they had always intended to do, were programmed to do – turn into cancer.
What is with this modern obsession about removing all risk? Nothing is more certain, as they say, than death, taxes and taxidermy by your government. To listen to the commentators this morning, one could imagine that it was possible to live forever, just by following their advice.
Don’t smoke, don’t drink, live on liquidised wheat grass, lop your tits off – for all your miserable life of self-denial, I have bad news for you. You will still die.
Try getting up in the morning and marvelling at what you do have, instead of fretting about the bad things that might happen in the future. Do things that make you happy. Take advantage of the positive in life. You will still die.
But you’ll have been happy in the meantime.
Go forth and enjoy yourself folks!
May 17,
2013 at 01:48
-
I believe she felt that her considerable influence – deserved or not, not
going to discuss that here – might aid other women in a similar situation and
give them the courage to deal with it.
As for her boobs (as we call them here), they were reconstructed during
surgery, so other than op scars, she’ll look normal. Her remark about her
children not having to fear that she would die goes back to how she felt when
her own mother died at 56, I think. I doubt they were informed what was going
on and she’ll look no different to them.
Boobs are terrifically overrated, imo. They serve a purpose in
child-rearing, otherwise it’s all about what men like, and that’s okay as
well. I live in silicone valley here in Hollywood/Los Angeles, so surrounded
by zaftig young women (real or not) every time I go to the supermarket at the
very least. Jolie is an actress who has a considerable following, and I think
she wanted to get one jump ahead on the media and control the spin. They kept
the op really secret, so good work by her press agents. I think Angelina is
40, isn’t she? If actresses wish to work after 40 in this mill, they have to
keep themselves in the public eye at the very least. Whether this will garner
her any new roles, or whether she will hit the talk-show circuit, time will
tell. But if her shouting from the roof-tops saves lives, then I’ve got no
problem. The procedure is, btw, covered by many insurance companies.
I used to find Angelina tiresome during her early years, but since she and
BP got married, she’s calmed down considerably, and as a couple I like them. I
think her heart is in the right place, and the approval of others has never
troubled her too much!
- May 18, 2013 at 09:41
-
@mewsical
A excellent balanced view of things from her point of view I
imagine. It’s probably a very good point that one good reason for her
*telling* an otherwise *intimate* story was to ensure media leaks didn’t
start alleging that she’d had a “secret boob job”.
-
May 16, 2013 at 11:27
-
It must take a lot of courage to have this operation to try and combat a
genetically increased chance of cancer. However I think a high profile
celebrity like AJ shouting so loud about it is out of order. She has access to
all the support and follow up treatment needed. Others who are fearful of the
chance of breast cancer, which is pretty high anyway, will be running to their
GP to ask for tests! I would say that anyone presenting with a substantial
number of breast cancers in close relatives. Especially when they are younger
than the age cancer usually occures, will be encouraged to have tests anyway.
Therefore no need to shout it from the house tops and seek such publicity
about such an intimate personal matter.
- May 16,
2013 at 10:57
-
Genetics my foot…its in the bloody vaccinations…..
- May 15, 2013 at 22:57
-
My neighbour’s husband took part in tests as most of the female members of
his family died in their 40s from breast or ovarian cancer. He carried the
BRCA gene and, unfortunately his two daughters then 18 and 16 had it too. At
18 they had two years counselling and as I speak the eldest, now 24, is having
her breasts removed in Cambridge, the youngest has not decided yet, Personally
I think it might have been better not knowing or at least having children
first. I only hope it is worth it as they are so young but as you say it can
only reduce the chances and nothing comes with a guarantee. Having to make
such a decision and the guilt their father feels, though not his fault of
course, makes me wonder if any of it is worth it. They were also told they had
an 80% chance of developing breast cancer.
- May 15, 2013 at 23:45
-
@ They were also told they had an 80% chance of developing breast cancer.
@
I was reading a bit deeper. The first thing that is conditional is that
these 80% figures have been derived from clinical studies on a small number
of family groupings and there is reason to believe that because these
families have been *extreme* enough to be noticed by the medical profession,
there may be other factors, such as environmental ones, that have affected
those families *in particular*. The suggestion is therefore that this figure
is likely to decrease as more research is done….
“Until very recently, estimates of the risk of hereditary cancer were
based on small studies of a few families that had an extraordinarily high
rate of breast and ovarian cancer. These families often had 5–10 cases of
breast cancer within two or three generations. Not surprisingly, the
resulting estimates for the risk of breast cancer were also very high: the
lifetime risk was as much as 80–90%. Until studies on larger populations
were completed, the 80% figure was used as a risk estimate for women who
carried the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations, even if they were not members of
such high-risk families and had only three or four affected relatives.
Larger study groups of community populations showed that the 80% figure was
an overestimate. For example, women in Iceland have a particularly high rate
of one of the BRCA2 mutations: as many as six women in 1,000 are affected.
Women who carry this mutation have a 17% chance of getting breast cancer
before age 50 and a 37% chance by age 70. Although this is an extremely high
risk when compared with the risk for women who do not have the mutation, the
figure is still nowhere near 80%.”
http://www.realage.com/womens-health/family-history-genetic-risk-and-breast-cancer
The second thing is that i read that it has been suggested that
“healthier living” can probably reduce rates from 80% to 50% just by
themselves.
The third thing is just me trying to think for myself about this 80%
number. It is a truism that the chances of cancer in anyone increases
markedly with age, and many 80+ men are now told they have “prostrate
cancer” but they will die faster than the cancer will grow. So, on that
basis, I accept the number of an 80% chance. But surely that must mean that
there is an 80% chance over a whole lifetime, and it must be that the
chances are much higher when you are much older, and therefore the chances
when you are much younger must be much lower? Intuitively, it seems to me
that an 80% chance over an 80 year lifespan is actually a 1% chance in any
one year, but maybe that is not how statistics work.
Overall I think Lucozade put the finger on it upthread. If you know it is
more likely, you need only make darned sure you get checked very regularly
and as often as practical. But fear is the motivator I guess and uncertainty
and a lack of perceived control over one’s life can be a tough thing to live
with.
- May 16, 2013 at 00:32
-
I am inclined to agree with you and it would certainly be my view,
however they have to make their own decision. They are both intelligent
young woman and the oldest took a long time to consider the options,
waiting until she had finished university and had some training in her
chosen profession. I should have stated more clearly that they were not
allowed to have the tests until they were 18 followed by two years of
counselling. Once taken though I suppose if you know you are at high risk
it would haunt you but I would have opted for intensive screening.
- May
16, 2013 at 10:02
-
You got there before me; it seems that everyone is accepting the given
percentage probabilities without question, but it must surely be more
complicated than that.
If a parent and three or more siblings have an identical or related
cancers, it’s a fair bet it’s genetic. The odd thing, in my family at
least, is that grandparents on both sides had the same cancers that have
since affected my parents, uncles and aunts, but this was only discovered
at post-mortem, after unrelated deaths (at 80 and 96). In my parents’
generation, however, these cancers have surfaced with a vengeance at a
much earlier age; though the sample is too small to be significant, the
rate is, coincidentally, 85%.
Since previous generations of both families have generally lived long
and healthy lives and there is no anecdotal history of deaths from cancer
before this, I am inclined to agree with my mother that there must be as
yet unconfirmed environmental or other factors at work.
- May 15, 2013 at 20:34
-
The one question I don’t see anyone asking is, would you be prepared to
risk your life on the results of a test the company producing the test will
not guarantee?
This high profile publicity is a god send for them and is bound to keep the
cash registers working overtime, especially in the US -Kerching.
- May 15, 2013 at 19:13
-
I do feel sorry for Angelina Jolie. She might not be all that inquisitive
and the sort to leave the decisions to he doctors, when some logical thinking
might have been more advantageous. I would imagine that anyone facing the odds
she was given would want any vestige of a potential cancer removed asap. There
have been lots of such cases involving young women, many related publicised
lately and they all say ‘we are now cancer free’ when in fact they were cancer
free before such radical surgery. The problem with the BRACA 1 GENE
- May 15, 2013 at 19:21
-
is it is an aggressive form of cancer and will find a site to live what
ever one does. There’s no guarantee that it will be stopped but no guarantee
that it will mutate. I’m also given to understand that any reconstruction
makes further detection very difficult. It’s a shame that women act so
rashly on the information given by some doctors. With Jolie’s wealth the
situation could have been monitored as often as she required without the
need of such a radical step. I would think Jolie was more at risk from
cancer from the amount of dye plied into her skin from tattooing. I do feel
for her though and the many women who face this horrid
disease.
@Anna
The statute of limitations works in very odd ways
- May 15, 2013 at 19:06
-
So now. If having her breasts removed makes her absolutely heroic, what
does that make the woman who decides to keep her breasts and take her chances?
Does that make her extraordinarily heroic, or does it mean she has a
psychiatric problem and needs to have the decision made for her?
- May 16, 2013 at 07:05
-
May 15, 2013 at 17:50
-
The deceptive quest for immortality has no limits and the belief in medical
science is beyond comprehension or logic. As a medic cousin of mine once said-
having ‘excessed his way to an early grave’ (he chided his offspring for
providing a healthy non fattening meal) ‘We doctors are fools’!!
-
May 15, 2013 at 16:02
-
The thing I find a little weird is that it is reported that fiance Brad
Pitt was there for every minute of the surgery. I don’t think I would want to
watch.
-
May 15, 2013 at 16:27
-
I’d rather watch a mastectomy operation than look at the Daily Mail
- May 15, 2013 at 16:35
-
You and me both. The DM’s completely unfunny, and the probability of
learning anything of historic, scientific, or technological value is much
less than 5%. Better to cut it off before it gets to the letterbox
- May 15, 2013 at 16:55
-
Now that, I got
- May 15, 2013 at 17:20
-
Out of all context, this line is just wonderful….
“March 26th –
Angelina is pictured in the Republic of Congo with William Hague following
the initial operation”
Off and back on in three months flat!! Bloody Hell. I had had no idea it
was so simple. Maybe it is as easy as having all your teeth out after
all.
- May 15, 2013 at 17:31
-
Now, what have we discussed about reading the Maul?
- May 15, 2013 at 17:42
-
From the comments……. and I promise it was not me…………
“This I feel is a modern fairy tale about strength and courage.
–
Ma_Larkin , Hebden Bridge, United Kingdom, 15/5/2013 11:05″
- May 15, 2013 at 15:59
-
Thinking about this notion further, it has some real advantages, as all up
and coming male celebrities could voluntarily undergo castration and hand
truncation, to avoid unfortunate accusations arising in later life leading to
their then being downed and outed
- May 15,
2013 at 15:43
-
Do we have evidence that she has had this surgery or is she blowing wind
and piss?
- May 15, 2013 at 15:44
- May 15, 2013 at 15:53
-
That would have been more likely to have followed on from, and been
announced as, a Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection, coupled with
surgical excision of, probably, a urethral diverticula
- May 15, 2013 at 15:23
-
Well I see the logic, told she faced an 87% risk she opted for surgery to
reduce the risk to 5%. Fair enough, the first risk was too high and the second
acceptable. However, all the talk of this being ‘very brave’ is a little
harder to get my head around. She no doubt has or will have the very best
reconstructive surgery so that her tits are in at least good shape now as they
were before.
Indeed, given the budget the woman has, I would not be surprised if she
opted for the hydraulic versions that are all the rage in Hollywood now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0OGZA76tbA
- May 15, 2013 at 15:27
-
I wish you hadn’t done that! I’d almost be tempted with the fully bionic
pneumatic drill, the advertisement for which is just surely round the
corner
- May 15, 2013 at 15:48
-
@ all the talk of this being ‘very brave’ is a little harder to get my
head around @
I think having your entire chest removed carries an “Eurgh” level that
must imply a degree of physical fortitude, which could be interpreted as
braveness. Having it done voluntarily, when there is neither clear, nor
present need, adds a whole different “Eurgh” factor. However she is only
following a British lead apparently, and the British celebrity was much
younger. It does make me wonder what sort of medical professionals there are
out there, who cannot ameliorate their patient’s understandable fears
without resort to Mac the Knife tactics.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4690675/michelle-heaton-double-mastectomy-was-hell-but-I-feel-so-good-now.html
-
May 15, 2013 at 16:00
-
“I think having your entire chest removed carries an “Eurgh” level that
must imply a degree of physical fortitude, which could be interpreted as
braveness.”
Oh sure, I do not disagree, happy to label it as brave. But just stop
short of the ‘very brave’ bit.
I’m willing to bet that on any given day
there are thousands of women across the world who have to endure more with
significantly less resources to support them and mitigate any downsides.
Like I said, I suspect her prime on-screen ‘props’ will come out at least
as good as the originals for those wide angle lens’ she makes a living in
front of.
I suppose what I’m getting at is why is the new all about famous people
doing essentially ordinary things, as oppose say ordinary people doing
extraordinary things.
-
May 15, 2013 at 14:31
-
Ali ‘Rum’ Baba May 15, 2013 at 14:30
People used to have all their teeth taken out, whether they were healthy or
not , to avoid problems later. We’re more enlightened now!
- May 15,
2013 at 14:23
-
If we needed any proof the Raccoon is back in scorching form, this is
it!
I’m (darkly) amused by the breezy suggestion that anyone can and should
have the genetic tests; Ms Jolie may be able to afford the best counselling
and medical treatment available, but it seems to me that what she is
advocating could open up some serious cans of worms for those less
fortunate.
Applying what I remember of O-level biology to my family history suggests I
have a 50-50 chance of having not one but two cancer-related defective genes –
as well as an inherited problem with general anaesthesia that makes major
surgery highly risky. Even if the NHS were prepared to fork out for testing
(which it isn’t*), a decision on which course of action to take would have to
be based on a highly complex set of relative probabilities.
And, frankly, given the cancer ‘care’ experienced by my parents and their
siblings, I don’t have much confidence in receiving objective, impartial and
intelligent (or, in some cases, intelligible) advice from NHS staff. I imagine
I would be largely thrown on my own resources and what I could glean from the
internet to assess the various possible outcomes.
As a matter of principle, I never gamble or bet; in this case, I prefer to
follow your excellent advice and stay out of the game as long as possible.
- May 15,
2013 at 14:35
-
*My mother (currently dealing with cancer for the second time) points out
that my parents and their siblings not only fit the bill for defective genes
but all lived through the years of atomic testing and were exposed to late
20th-century pesticides in agricultural areas – and the fall-out from
Chernobyl.
She suggests that environmental factors may be playing an as yet
undiscovered part in ‘activating’ the cancers in genetically susceptible
people of her generation, which would cast doubt on the current probability
statistics.
- May
15, 2013 at 15:41
-
good point
- May 15, 2013 at 14:05
-
Despite (perhaps) having a genetic susceptibility to breast cancer, Ms.
Jolie must have an odd idea about how cancers occur.
Some of the billions of cells in the body – everyone’s body – mutate at
random. Effectively we all have cancerous cells in our fluids at all
times.
But these only become a tumour if the immune systems fail to mop
them up. So, although she may have reduced the likelihood of developing breast
cancer, she could succumb to any of the other 100+ sites/types.
Boosting one’s immune system is the most important preventative
measure.
- May 15, 2013 at 14:11
- May 16, 2013 at 13:37
-
But those of us who suffer from auto-immune problems (Arthritis and
Psoriasis, in my case) might not be too thrilled with the idea of tinkering
with our immune systems…
-
May 15, 2013 at 13:55
-
The stock of the company that produces the test Angelina Jolie took has
jumped after the announcement. It is an ill wind…
- May 15, 2013 at 14:21
-
Sponsored celebrity organ removal and replacement will be the next fad.
Followed by adverts such as
‘We can vent your spleen’
‘Appendectomies – get your necessary
addition for the fulfilled life’
‘You’re never too old to be a
hipster’
‘Comedians get cornea and cornea’
I’m sure there’s worse.
- May 15, 2013 at 14:25
-
Maybe, but I haven’t the stomach for it.
-
May 15, 2013 at 14:30
-
At this rate, the backing theme song will be….
‘We all live on a Yellow Brick Road, a Yellow Brick Road, a Yellow
Brick Road….’
- May 15, 2013 at 14:30
-
People used to have all their teeth taken out, whether they were
healthy or not , to avoid problems later. We’re more enlightened now!
-
May 15, 2013 at 16:44
-
Indeed they did – my own mother had all her perfect ivories removed,
aged 21 in 1937, on the kitchen table, as a 21st Birthday gift from her
loving uncle. It was seen as a positive benefit to be free from a
lifetime of potential dental problems and cost. Happy days ?
- May 15, 2013 at 14:36
-
May 15, 2013 at 15:49
-
Therefore she shouldn’t have made such a decision?
- May 15, 2013 at 13:54
-
There are 650 people in Westminster with the FU2 defective brain gene.
Can we persuade them to have their brains surgically removed so as to
minimise the risk of them making any more poor decisions?
- May 16, 2013 at 13:34
-
I thought they already had had this done. Are you REALLY trying to tell
me that there are intelligent (of a sort) sentient creatures there?
Come on – I mean – I’ll believe some things, but there IS a limit…
- May 15, 2013 at 13:44
-
Thank you, the whole risk adverse thing has been puzzling me and this
didn’t seem to actually remove the risk nor good I see just how it was heroic
-perhaps we all need to become brains in jars.
-
May 15, 2013 at 13:52
-
@Giolla’ ‘…….. perhaps we all need to become brains in jars.’ Yes, and
then some (you know who …..!) can use the contents of their jars to prove
they actually had/have one !
-
May 15, 2013 at 12:15
-
So, lets get this right.
All women cut their tits off, all men their bollox…. Rip out a few bits,
like bowels, bladders…. BRAINS.
Then cancer will be no more….. Or have I misunderstood that?
- May 15, 2013 at 12:20
-
@ Then cancer will be no more @
Dr. Icke’s recipe:
http://www.davidicke.com/articles/medicalhealth-mainmenu-37/29121
- May 15, 2013 at 12:30
-
Has anyone tried to correlate people’s rates of fungal infection with
their willingness to believe anything?
-
May 15, 2013 at 15:48
-
Unless you have, seriously, understood the circumstances of Jolie’s
mastectomy, then yours is a truly stupid remark.
Jolie isn’t saying that if she ‘cuts her tits off’ (as you put it) then
cancer will be no more. She did, however, find herself in the rather
unfortunate position of having an 85% risk of contracting the disease unless
she had such a procedure performed as a result of her genes. I really can’t
see how having to make such a terrible decision can be maligned like
this.
That’s an 85% risk of contracting this potentially fatal disease, not
what I’d call unlikely. She’s still young and has a family who she loves and
let’s not forget rich. She has, therefore, much to live for.
Easy to comment glibly when it’s not you facing the likely prospect of
cancer but an 85% risk isn’t exactly ‘well, you might or you might not get
cancer’ now, is it?
What would you, honestly, do if you had to make a decision based on those
odds?
- May 15, 2013 at 16:03
-
It’s more likely that German Humour put forward by Angry Germans can be
difficult to spot
- May 15, 2013 at 16:09
-
Nationality/mental state and your explanation notwithstanding, I’m
struggling to see the humorous aspect of the post?
-
May 15, 2013 at 16:12
-
So I’d noticed
- May 15, 2013 at 16:14
-
Happy to have my ignorance explained to me.
- May 15, 2013 at
16:16
- May
15, 2013 at 21:58
-
are you crazy? if you don’t mind me asking
-
May 16, 2013 at 21:22
-
Surely, a more sensible approach would be to have a mammogram every 6
months/year…..
And as various others have pointed out, what is she
going to do to reduce the risk of being hit by a bus? drowning? getting
lung cancer (its not only smokers that get lung cancer)?
Or, horrors! –
getting old and….gasp….losing her looks?
How many “bits” is she going
to chop off before she feels safe? Stupid woman….
- May 17, 2013 at 20:26
-
A fair point Bellevue ………. but ………… would Ms Jolie have garnered
about $5million worth of free publicity for having mammograms twice a
year?
And as someone up the thread mentioned there are those American
gene patents applying. How can anyone patent something
as natural as genes you might well ask? Well Nestle (whose CEO believes
water is a commodity that should be owned by corporations) recently
filed a patent for the fennel flower in American courts. It appears anything
can be patented these days.
- May 15,
2013 at 12:08
-
The trouble is how many women will fall for this madness? These scripts
work because man has forgone his and her own sovereignty, health is given to
anyone in a white coat or suit in the correct building, never checking the
credentials of the medical operator. I watched a perfectly healthy women in
her forties, a widow of Falkland fallen SAS warrior get the news she had
breast cancer. Not even a thought for a second third and 10th opinion, just
absolute obedience to the data offered to her by a doctor, a specialist or
whatever. Off came the mammaries.
When I studied the offerings of those at the top of their field when the
HIV-Aids scam went overt in the early 80′s, they were forthright in their
findings that HIV was a phantom that did not exist. They claim once told of
the disease one goes into shock…loses weight and for all and sundry they can
see something is very wrong and so the scam plays itself out enough…that the
new diet is one of medication.
The same experts in their field after over a
decade of research made the claim that through the injection of the cocktails
the victim of the scam would be given a form of leukaemia from which they
would die.
From an occult perspective, the attack on the mammary symbolises
the female withdrawing the milk that nurtures new life, ergo the destruction
of life itself.
Jolie is playing a script as she did with the adopting of
babies, period….
- May 15, 2013 at 12:07
-
I’m with Ms Jolie on this one. No point in taking unnecessary risks nor in
not eliminating them where possible. Although nothing in life is guaranteed,
if I could turn an 85% risk of an early death by cancer into a 5% one by means
of a low-risk surgical intervention, I think I’d be very likely to do so
- May 15, 2013 at 12:24
-
Where do you stop? Reducing a 100% risk of problems to zero?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22518684
You start to get into slippery slope territory very easily once you begin
this
BTW, I think getting the police involved in that was outrageous. It’s not
only social workers who want to, or think they have some right to, tell
everyone what they must think and do. On the other hand, his views, if he
were to be serious about actually doing such a thing, are still utterly
repugnant and need shown up for being such
- May 15, 2013 at 12:38
-
I don’t see how the article that you reference, interesting though it
is, relates to this discussion on personal decisions that reduce risk in
one’s own life.
-
May 15, 2013 at 12:45
-
Generally, if someone is prepared to do it to themselves, it’s much
easier for them to then be prepared to do it to others too. Insist on
it, in fact.
You might not, but there are loads of people out there that I
wouldn’t trust at all to be able to limit their personal moral choices
to themselves or, worse, not be happy to make this sort of moral choice
for others in a manner that they wouldn’t make for themselves
-
May 15, 2013 at 12:57
-
Well I agree with you regarding control freaks who would dictate
our every move. Keeping those people out of our hair is a never –
ending battle. But please let us make our own decisions about our own
health, based on the best available information and in the light of
our own life goals.
-
May 15, 2013 at 13:11
-
The slippery slope that I worry about is the one that results from
compulsive authoritarianism building its own seductive, and
prescriptive, dogma on top of what has become a generally accepted,
voluntary, liberalism
I’m not at all bothered about what you personally choose do. If you
thought that a lobotomy would make your life more carefree, fine
- May 15, 2013 at 11:56
-
Anna Raccoon,
Re: “Just for the record, 40 years ago, Ms Raccoon had a hysterectomy, not
by choice. It was the result of mistaken identity in the operating theatre,
when I was 23 – unfortunately long before one could sue the NHS, otherwise Ms
Raccoon would have been several hundred thousand pounds richer than she is –
and having not had a uterus for the past 40 years, I still have cancer of the
uterus and have had for the past two years”
You should sue them now, surely you’d get some sort of compensation?
I think having both your breasts removed when you haven’t actually got
cancer yet, just know you are high risk, seems too drastic to me, you’d have
thought she could just go for regular check ups to watch out for it and catch
it early if it does occur….
- May 15, 2013 at 12:12
-
As Ms R will undoubtedly know, there are time limitations. Simple version
can be found included here
- May 15, 2013 at 12:18
- May 15, 2013 at 11:53
-
This reminds me of a ‘Homo Sap’ cartoon that appeared long ago in Private
Eye
Homo stands, one legged, with crutch, in prison cell, talking to fellow
prisoner. “My escape plan is working” he confides. “What plan and how does it
work” is the response. States Homo, “I convinced them my leg was gangrenous
and they cut it off”. So cellmate asks “But how are you going to escape like
that?” “Bit by bit…” comes the wise rejoinder.
Avoiding death should be a mere bagatelle…….
- May 15, 2013 at 12:17
- May 15, 2013 at 11:37
-
I find myself lost in admiration for Madame d’Arblay’s courage.
- May 15, 2013 at 11:18
-
This was picked up on the BBC World service as the most tweeted story the
BBC had…… and contributors from Africa were involved, and much was made of the
fact that the genetic test she would have first had to identify this “gene
malfunction” is one of those subject to a Gene Patent in the USA; so it is
very expensive. This naturally led on to the usual flap about inequity and how
deaths in poor African nations could be avoided except…….
The only sensible contribution was a guy with some numbers. I think he said
this gene malfunction is only in every 500th person, but this has only really
been measured in Western populations anyway (I think he meant Caucasian). But
then of this one in 500 only about 1% of those was likely to become a problem
in reality. As with all statistics I might just be making all this up on the
spot by now.
-
May 15, 2013 at 11:16
-
Bravo!
- May 15,
2013 at 12:02
-
Seconded!
-
May 15, 2013 at 18:29
-
Thirded and fourthed. How dreadful this pseudo-medical/scientific
rubbish is. Death comes to us all, in his own time.
-
May 15, 2013 at 19:08
-
Fifthed.
Anna – the last three sentences of your post are
absolutely spot on. Saviour every day – you’ve no idea when Him Upstairs
will call your number.
I think if I discovered I was genetically susceptible to something
(unlikely, since I probably wouldn’t take such a test; I’d rather leave
it to Nature and the Almighty), I’d increase the frequency of health
check-ups so that if (and it is still ‘if’) it did happen, there would
be more chance of early treatment having a positive outcome.
{ 78 comments }